Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I'll catch up to you on that when I'm sure there are souls.
"I'll catch up to you on that when I'm sure there are souls."
Smile. I was raised to believe there was not a soul, when one died that was it. Events, and people I have encountered caused a question in my mind, if this is all there is then make the most of it. Apparently the Heavenly Father saw fit to allow a glimpse that "flesh" was only a relative, and a limited state. So if He saw fit to give me a glimpse, then there is hope for all His children.
I'm sorry - I meant justification as the source of the moral rule.
It seems to me that to say descriptively that the trait has been selected for millennia does not explain where the requirement came from or why it is incumbent upon me to obey it as a moral rule in the future. You have to presuppose a prior morality before there is any right or wrong, but then how can natural selection account for what came before it?
Cordially,
Here comes the Supernatural Anesthetist.
That is a misstatement of fact, Professor, and you know it. I posted, "I am not a Christian Reconstructionist; I am a Presbyterian."
And you obviously read this post because in response you followed up with the statement to someone that "she could be a Presbyterian because CR was begun by the Presbyterians." (paraphrasing here)I think it was you who even mentioned Van Til.
Recall?
No CR I've read has ever advocated stoning children, or anyone. But Christian perspectives are assailed on all sides. As God wills. If you'd like to read what someone like Greg Bahnsen, a student of Van Til, wrote about Scripture, Christianity and God's purpose, a good place to find complete articles is here:
A good one to start with might be:
You are correct about one thing, however. A Christian worldview where all kneel to the Triune God of Scripture does seem to be lagging. It is a loathsome prospect to those who deny it. I have faith, however, it is but a momentary stagnation.
No King but Christ.
"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor 10:5)
Bump to 1286.
No, I'm afraid that's a lie. You posted in 1029. " I have not said I'm a Christian Reconstructionist. I'm a Presbyterian." You know darn well that the two are not mutually exclusive; CR is an outgrowth of Presbyterianism. And it's a classic example of your strategy of defense by hairsplitting.
If you wish to say now that you are not a CR, I'm glad. They are hateful people, and it's good the world contains one fewer of them than I suspected.
But you then go on to promote yet another of their number. How curious!
No, not all of your posts are spam.
I think it was gobucks B666 and I were talking about when we referred to "spamming idiot"
The comedy value has been immense however, and I am sure that he recruits many lurkers and doubters to the evo cause. Who can ever forget his finest post, which started at the premise that he enjoys frequent mind-blowing sex at the moment, and proceeded via a chain of bizarre non-sequiturs to the concluded proof that the theory of evolution is false. QED.
You couldn't make it up. Unintentional comedy of top quality.
What's objectively wrong with the death penalty for crimes other than homicides?
If you have the link, I'm sure PH would include it in his 'This is Your Mind on Creationism' section.
LOL. Who's splitting hairs now, Professor?
For clarity: I am not a CR, as I thought was made clear earlier by the post you referenced. I am a Presbyterian, by the grace of God.
They (CR) are hateful people, and it's good the world contains one fewer of them than I suspected.
Hateful? "The opposition" has done nothing but slander and ridicule and twist and prevaricate regarding CR. None of you has been able to give me a straight answer to a simple question -- IF there exists a God who created heaven and earth, would it be a bad thing for all the world to acknowledge that specific God?
Instead I get all this "you wouldn't want my God" and "who are you to tell me who God is..."
yadayadayada...
That wasn't the question, and a Professor probably knows that.
We have been so drenched in the angst of the void that we can't even imagine a world where everyone is happy and content in the service of one God (given the presumption that this God exists.)
CR is interesting speculation, the most interesting aspect being the incredible vitriol that is spewed it its direction every time the two words are mentioned.
Advocating the public stoning of children will kind of do that for you.
Don't forget the 3rd kind: those who will sit around and let it happen because it is done in the name of God.
Indeed. It deserves to be preserved.
No CR I've read did nor does advocate stoning anyone, but that sure doesn't keep people from saying it -- over and over and over...
I'll ask you the same question I've asked the others, all to no avail. IF there is a Triune God who created heaven and earth (this is assuming there is one; that's part of the game here), would it be a "good thing" or a "bad thing" for all the world to praise Him?
Save yourself the time in offering "You wouldn't want my God" or "Who are you to tell me who to worship?"
That's not the question here. The question is presupposing that we are in agreement (only theoretically) that there is one, true God.)
AhHA!
His Noodley Appendages have jellyfish capabilites!
The last 400 posts have taught me to read your posts very carefully indeed. When I'm dining with the devil, I use a long spoon.
IF there exists a God who created heaven and earth, would it be a bad thing for all the world to acknowledge that specific God?
As opposed to what other god?
"The opposition" has done nothing but slander and ridicule and twist and prevaricate regarding CR
Bullcookies. The opposition has posted a wealth of substantial evidence about the theocratic aspirations and the horrific proposed social policies of this bunch of kooks, and your sole defense has been to claim they were quoted out of context, ignoring that we have in some cases quoted whole articles.
We have been so drenched in the angst of the void that we can't even imagine a world where everyone is happy and content in the service of one God (given the presumption that this God exists.)
The live ones happy and content, the adulterers, homosexuals, blasphemers, and disobedient children having already been stoned to death.
I noticed nothing about the idiot part......
</drool>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.